X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229849DC9F2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:53:03 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 80150-07 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:53:01 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from alvh.no-ip.org (201-220-123-7.bk10-dsl.surnet.cl [201.220.123.7]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933F69DC833 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:53:00 -0400 (AST) Received: by alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E4A2BC2DC59; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:55:21 -0300 (CLST) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:55:21 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Mindaugas Cc: Tom Lane , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum Message-ID: <20060118165521.GC19933@surnet.cl> Mail-Followup-To: Mindaugas , Tom Lane , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <20060117145649.GE21092@phlogiston.dyndns.org> <608xteerfh.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> <20060117173046.GA4296@surnet.cl> <604q42elzl.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> <20592.1137526372@sss.pgh.pa.us> <034701c61c46$f427df20$f20214ac@bite.lt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <034701c61c46$f427df20$f20214ac@bite.lt> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.894 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.025, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44] X-Spam-Score: 1.894 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200601/300 X-Sequence-Number: 16778 Mindaugas wrote: > > >> Even a database-wide vacuum does not take locks on more than one table. > > >> The table locks are acquired and released one by one, as the operation > > >> proceeds. > > > > > Has that changed recently? I have always seen "vacuumdb" or SQL > > > "VACUUM" (without table specifications) running as one long > > > transaction which doesn't release the locks that it is granted until > > > the end of the transaction. > > > > You sure? It's not supposed to, and watching a database-wide vacuum > > with "select * from pg_locks" doesn't look to me like it ever has locks > > on more than one table (plus the table's indexes and toast table). > > Are there some plans to remove vacuum altogether? No, but there are plans to make it as automatic and unintrusive as possible. (User configuration will probably always be needed.) -- Alvaro Herrera Developer, http://www.PostgreSQL.org FOO MANE PADME HUM